158 comments:

Too young to trigger the button? So that's how they set the minimum age for old enough to die for Allah. I wonder if she even knew what she was carrying. And I'm sure their best men are working on a simpler trigger.

I hope that child is taken out of that God forsaken hell hole and given a life in a safe place in which she can learn that females are human and not the property of some troglodyte, to do with as he sees fit. It's a curse to be born female in such societies.

The courageous freedom fighters of Afghanistan, humblers of empires, bravely sending their eight-year-old sisters out to fight grown men with modern weapons.

Inga, it's not sex discrimination. If he'd had an eight-year-old brother he'd have sent him out too.

This is a deliberate tactic, use the weak and defenceless as your weapon. Could be a retarded adult male or an elderly woman just as well as a little girl. In Iraq they sometimes used babies.

Their intended audience is leftists in the West. When US-backed Afghan troops set up checkpoints for babies, or shoot a little girl who gets too close, booby-trapped or not, leftists in the West will talk only about how evil the West is. Straight out of the Israel playbook.

Does it matter how many are left? And if they don't respect their women and children, why should I? That's the ugly truth about war, you gt some of your enemies stain upon your soul. Better people than I can be remorseful about it.

Inga: its not just children. Actually I believe they prefer full sized humans that are mentally challenged, retarded as we once said. So, not just women, but those with mental disabilities are the weapons of choice for the more violent members of the religion of peace.

One only hopes this helps to bring an end to the stupidity of favoring "innocent women and children."

In any war, there are lots of "innocents" among non-combatants, many of whom are men. But in an existential struggle, it is the innocents who must suffer in order to make way for the brave protagonist.

Still we rightly condemn the Swiss and Amerikans who stayed innocent of the murder of Jews, gays, gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, the disabled and others by Nazis.

But the Swiss, though "neutral," were more guilty than innocent: they positively enjoyed benefiting from the stolen wealth of the condemned Jews and others.

The news reports say she is "as young as" eight. Seems like an estimate. From her photos in the Daily Mail (thanks for the link, LemonDog), she looks more like twelve -- lots of cheekbone development there.

Not that that makes it okay.

The Daily Mail article also goes into helpful detail about how widespread this practice is. It says 224 kids are already in prison "for planning or carrying out attacks."

just another example of the need to outlaw Islam in this country. it is not a religion, it is an insane death cult. we need to expel non-citizen Muslims, offer bounties for citizens to leave, and end any visas for Muslims.

How old that little girl looks! Life in that country ages people quickly. You'll remember the iconic National Geographic photo of the young young Afghan girl; this girl's face betrays the same hard life, or maybe even harder.

Inga said... I hope that child is taken out of that God forsaken hell hole and given a life in a safe place in which she can learn that females are human and not the property of some troglodyte, to do with as he sees fit. It's a curse to be born female in such societies.

I disagree. She and the whole lot of them should stay there. This is the society they have built and fought to defend.

It wasn't that long ago Kabul was a fairly progressive city. About on par with Cairo. But they pissed it away and allowed the most extreme religious fanatics to take over. They allowed it two times so we should assume this is what they really want.

This little beast animal grew up in some hellhole in the middle of nowhere. Birthplace unknown. Father died when he was born. No electricity, No education. No medical care. Just his holy book, if that.

His older brothers, both teenagers, went to war. It was brutish. Savage conflict. To the death. So he did, too, the little animal. Only about 12 or 13. He was a savage himself.

Older brother died in a battle.

He got captured. Refused to obey an order from an officer and was struck down with a bloody blow to the head.

He hated the enemy with vicious passion, hated them, because his other brother died of disease as did his mother.

Yet I do blame Inga and the liberals for their incessant moral equivalency between the West and Islamists. They try to "muddy the waters". As loathesome as Fred Phelps and his gang is, they are nothing compared to the ghouls who strap a suicide vest on an 8 year old girl. Yet we are supposed to buy into this false moral equivalence. Why? I have no idea. I can't fathom the mind of an insane liberal like Inga.

Sad to say but its nearly impossible to win against such savages. How do you threaten the brother in this case? Kill his family? He doesn't give a crap. Short of mass killing them until they realize we don't give a crap if they all die how do you fight them?

I seriously doubt they promised the chld anything. They probably threatened to kill her or burn her alive themselves. Who knows how she was abused her entire short unfortunate life.Why assume she did was not willing?

I commented a while back on the need to outlaw Islam, and RPMDaddy replied,just another example of the need to outlaw Islam in this country."

Won't work, and can't, if you think about it.

there is a long answer to this, best put by the late Lawrence Auster, who noted that current public opinion is utterly opposed to actions required for the survival of Western civiliazation. I urge all to read his speech athttp://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012935.html Auster notes also that a constitutional amendment defining Islam as a political idealogy, and outlawing it, would be required. he notes the current impossibility of such an action.

" hope that child is taken out of that God forsaken hell hole and given a life in a safe place in which she can learn that females are human and not the property of some troglodyte, to do with as he sees fit."

I give up. If Inga cannot see this, it is useless to try to convince her that her messiah Obama is involved .

Why assume she was not willing? Are you serious? She was eight years old.

Central Africa is full of children that age who'll take a machete to your balls or tits without the batting an eye - very willingly - because they've been indoctrinated to do so. Call it brainwashing. Call it what you will, but these children kill willingly and without hesitation.

These children exist the world over, and they're very effective. Why should AfPak be any different?

Did I say she shouldn't have been considered a legitimate target? No I don't believe I did. If she or anyone is walking up to a check point and doesn't stop when told to they are a legitamate target. As it happened she could not press the button and now she's in custody. She has a chance at life now, it was a blessing for this child that she didn't know what she was doing. You may disagree, it's a free country.

When an Afghan walks up to a checkpoint and doesn't stop, they can be and are shot.

Uh, huh. And how many of those are 8 year old girls?

Two scenarios:

1)Girl approaches checkpoint. Doesn't stop. LCPL Smith fires, killing the girl. Witnessed by members of the international press. No evidence that the child was armed in any way. Had a coat liner on because it was very cold that day. You seriously going to tell me that in today's environment of lawfare, that Marine isn't in for some deep shit. Especially if it ends up being filmed or photographed by some unsympathetic parties?

2)Girl approaches checkpoint. Doesn't stop. She's very cute. LCPL Smith crouches down and has her approach because she reminds him of his kid, and he wants to give her some gummi worms.

Little boys' fate isn't much better. They make beautiful Bacha Bazi dancing boys. This is happening to this day, despite our presence in this hell hole for, what 10 years now, 11? The Bacha Bazi boys are sold to high ranking officers in the Afghan Army. Doesn't look like our presence there has had much positive influence, has it?

T Rellis, if someone, anyone walks up to a checkpoint and doesn't stop when told to they get shot or blown up. My daughter spent a year there with the Marines and she has seen it happen, live and in person.

But you just go ahead and believe what you want. Seriously I don't really care what you fools think you know.

No Fen, I relay what my daughter has told me. I am not an authority, SHE is ( on her own experiences there and in the military) and if you don't like it, too damn bad, I do not give a shit. As for anything at ALL that comes from Fen, I consider the source and DISMISS it.

It is our culture which protects us from Islamic savagery. By turning women against men, rich against poor, black against white the left has left us almost defenseless against Islam. In Europe the left labels anyone who wants to stand up for traditional Western values Islamaphobes, haters and Nazis. Here they call people who stand up for traditional culture Islamaphobes, tea baggers, homophobes, haters, and racists and always bring up to Crusades to prove that Christians are the real enemies. When people point out that Huma Abedin Hilarie Clinton's special aid and confident is intimately connected to the Muslim brotherhood the left and some on the right claims that Huma could not possibly be a plant for the Muslims Brotherhood. When people point out that open borders are an open invitation for Al Qaeda to infiltrate our country the left shrieks about racism and hatred for Mexicans and try to convince Hispanics that the reason conservatives want to control the border is because they hate them.

Oh and by the way Fen, have any more desires to rape, then burn female reporters? That was SOOOO weird back when you were ranting about that female reporter in the Zimmerman case. Then you strangely dissaperared from Althouse for the longest time, now here you are again, spouting the same weird bullshit you usually do, Drago, oops, I mean Fen.

And its stupid of you to imply that Drago and I are the same person. Meade can easily confirm we are not by comapring IPs.

I'm in Gaithersburg, Maryland. I don't know Drago and have no idea where he is posting from.

But go on with your little rants. I'm beginning to think both of you are menopausal. Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to extend voting rights to creatures that are constantly yanked about emotionally by their hormones?

Thanks to her incompetence, I am almost certain that her father and any other male members of the family that are handy, will be obliged to stone the child to death - otherwise they would have to bear the shame on the family. No explanation necessary or possible with that religious mentality.

Islam does not have to be barbaric. Through most of its history it wasn't. I no longer think the religion has much to do with what's happening in the Middle East or Africa. Christianity didn't prevent the fall of Rome, despite the best efforts of Augustine and many others. The barbarians who sacked Rome were Christian, too. It didn't matter.

Whatever the motivation of the Jihadis, the end result of their efforts is to barbarize the remnants of the Islamic Empires that were once beacons of civilization. They are barbarians picking over the decaying corpse of empire. It's Muslim against Muslim, and the challenge we face is managing the chaos.

What's happening in the Arab Islamic world is civilizational collapse. We're seeing a long-running, slow motion, decay going all the way back to the last centuries of the Ottoman Empire. It's a lot like the fall of the Roman Empire, and it's not going to be pleasant nor will it be over anytime soon.

You historically have made this accusation against many posters. Yet the only commenter here that I have personally seen definitively outed for sock puppetry is you. And that was for running not just one sock puppet but a whole crew.

Fen, whatever you may be trying to accomplish with your pathetic stories, the truth of the matter is that you feel you must discredit and disparage others to silence them. You did it to Althouse today, you didn't get away with it and were humiliated by her on the front page and you continue to attempt to do it to me. You're a silly little man.

I must continually remind myself that this culture does not measure success of the battle by single souls killed, but rather generations of combatants. They care not for the lives of the current generation doing battle, for they know their heirs will carry on the killing, as they kill in the name of their ancestors that preceded them. Make no mistake, the goal, to be carried out for generations to come is to conquer the US by force and kill those that refuse to convert. Generations of violence is what we face unless we marshal the will to eliminate these aggressors.

Sorry, but you have got to be kidding me. You know how Islam came to India, right? You've read about Burton's semi-undercover trip to Mecca, right? You know about the Jannisaries, and the Devşirme system whereby Christian families were "taxed" of some of their male offspring?

What could you possibly mean by "Through most of its history it wasn't"?

You think the Romans were barbaric? They did the same things, and worse. So have the Chinese. So did the Belgians in Africa. Civilizations can do awful, evil things but they aren't necessarily barbarians.

I'm not a big fan of Islamic civilization, but it's a civilization. What is replacing it is not a civilization at all. If we were looking at Syria and the rest of the Middle East as a past historical event rather we'd be able to see that it's a collapse. The global jihadi movement is a barbarian invasion. There's no question that the states that used to rule the Middle East were better than the Jihad that's happening now. As bad as they were, there was peace. I wouldn't have wanted to live in Syria in 2010, but I want to live there now even less.

Conquering people, enslaving them, and ruling empires isn't necessarily barbaric. Evil doesn't mean barbarism. Empires can be good or bad, but barbarians are only bad. The Islamic empires weren't that much worse than what came before and after. The comparison I'd make is between something like the Ottomans or the Mughals and... Gengis Khan. Big difference.

Barbarians destroy what came before and replace it with nothing. Al Queda destroys all and builds nothing. They're the Huns of our age.

Suicide bombing is getting more and more difficult, particularly in places where they are so common. You will see more and more kids and older women being bombers. For instance, who would ever expect to see a 60 something white female LPN w/ a bomb strapped to her? That's how this is evolving.

Spinelli, what a truly bizarre comment. I said you were a psychopath in a different thread yesterday, when you made a personal comment to me unrelated to the subject of the blog post, today you prove it...again. Althouse do you see what I mean ?

I've seen the comments on Amazon's page for Mr Spinelli's wife's books. While not completely certain it was you - never know with a sock puppeteer and its not worth tracking it down - but I'll take his word that it was you over any protestations you'd make that it wasn't.

Althouse do you want your blog misused, as in the past when people are allowed to threaten and intimidate other commenters into silence? It is a sickening pattern around here again. When someone posts comments contradictory to the majority, they are targeted for abuse disproportionate to the " offense". This blog is usually interesting and I enjoy reading, commenting and interacting with the decent folks here, but when types like Fen, B, Spinelli are allowed to dirty up the comments section it hurts the blog and makes it look like a schoolyard where the bullies rule. They even try to bully Althouse herself.

Inga wrote:"I hope that child is taken out of that God forsaken hell hole and given a life in a safe place in which she can learn that females are human and not the property of some troglodyte, to do with as he sees fit. It's a curse to be born female in such societies."

And I hope I win the lottery. Hasn't happened yet. So, I guess that's that then.

"Civilizations can do awful, evil things but they aren't necessarily barbarians [emphasis added]"

Of course I agree with that. Not necessarily barbarians, for sure. But Islamic civilization, at all times places, certainly may be. Once it's admitted that a civilization could be barbaric, then it comes down to the facts.

(And yes, the Romans were beyond barbaric in many aspects, including the exposing of unwanted children, and the reliance in slavery.)

Inga, here is a lesson for you:Back when there was slavery I'm sure some well minded people said I wish someone would take those poor Africans out of bondage.The British Navy actually did something about it.The CHRISTIAN abolitionists did something about it. And in modern day ME there are many who want to keep girls in slavery. And they do something about it. Talk is cheap. And it seems like the world you want is one where the people who would treat women like chattel do something about while the well meaning people just talk about how bad it is but make a point not to lift a finger.

Jr. I think you should make your case to your fellow conservatives here. Tell them how you think we should go back into Iraq and stay in Afghanistan to "help" these people. I'm pretty sure the libertarians may have an issue with your premise, that we owe it to these people to "help" them. Go ahead Jr.

Inga, When describing "These people" you should note that not every single muslim girl is one strapping a bomb to her chest. A lot of them are victims of people strapping bombs to their chest.Mallala getting shot in the face by the Taliban is not the Taliban. I doubt she is going to strap a bomb to her chest when talking at the UN.

Inga wrote: I think you should make your case to your fellow conservatives here. Tell them how you think we should go back into Iraq and stay in Afghanistan to "help" these people. I'm pretty sure the libertarians may have an issue with your premise, that we owe it to these people to "help" them

Libertarians are lefties when it comes to defense. They, or at least the Paulians want a fortress America. They want to trade with Iran. So I imagine I would disagree with libertarians on a lot of things.The premise of the democrats fighting the REAL war on Terror, as opposed to the diversion from the real war on terror was that Al Qaeda being able to create a terrorist state was not in America's interest, and that we can expend some military power to prevent that from happening.That premise still holds true.

The little girls are not to blame Jr., you bviously realize this. I do hope for the best for this child, I hope women in Afghanistan wouldn't be treated worse than the goats, BUT there comes a time that rational people realize that we cannot westernize and Christianize these people. They are who they are, despite our presence there.

Revenant wrote:The major libertarian objection to the war is that it is far from helpful.

The major objection I have to the libertarian objection to the war is that the Peace is far from helpful.And libertarians don't seem to have a response to Al Qaeda setting up terrorist states other than complain about how expensive it all is.

Inga wrote:BUT there comes a time that rational people realize that we cannot westernize and Christianize these people. They are who they are, despite our presence there.

Not all of them. The ones putting bombs on their chests. Mallala seems to be pushing western values like trying to get women educations. I"m sure the Taliban will have something to say about that. But if they are the only ones putting actions behind their words then of course, women will never get educated there.It's pretty unseemly of you to blame the victim here.

Japan had to be defeated and pacified utterly. And now is a relatively stable and peaceful nation that we can deal with. During WWII would Inga be saying we need to realize that we can't pacify these people and need to withdraw. Then we would still be dealing with the Japan of WWII and not the Japan of today.

My dear Jr. We cannot and should not sacrifice one more of our country's treasures, because of a Malala. It is up to the populations of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. "cure" the sickness in their own societies.

inga wrote:BUT there comes a time that rational people realize that we cannot westernize and Christianize these people. They are who they are, despite our presence there.

Before Egypt was thrust into turmoil it was a relatively benign ME state. It was even not at war with Israel. Imagine that. ME states don't need to be Al Qaeda or the Taliban, or even Egypt. It's only because the extremists are the ones with the guns willing to shoot people in the face to get their way. There are certainly a lot of them. But there are moderates out there. It's just a lot more costly to push moderation than to push extremism. Even moreso when the western world washes it's hands of the whole thing.If this were south Africa, I guess the Nelson Mandela's of the world can rot in prison. And i guess the musicians will play Sun City after all.

I'm not arguing that if a country is mistreating it's women that we must invade it. But having Al Qaeda control a country and turn it into a terrorist state is not in our best interest. And makes it extremly unlikely that those countries will ever be able to reform themselves.So the fight is really over AL Qaeda, not our duty to bring education to the country. However, that is also in our long term interest, since if we are dealing with countries that are not terrorist states, we don't have to deal with them as terorist states.

It's not always in our self interest to invade every country. But it's not always in our self interest not to.If dealing with Afghanistan because of Al Qaeda was valid, then it's still valid to deal with Al Qaeda if they happen to take over Iraq.We clearly haven't done enough if Al Qaeda is ascendant. That suggests we dropped the ball.

MadisonMan wrote:I thank God for the USA and its values. Any father with a daughter does.

Most liberals don't. First they don't believe in American Exceptionalism. And second, many don't believe in God. Watch the conversation between Hannity and Jeanine Garofolo where he asks her if she believes in American exceptionalism to here the standard liberal response.

My point is that these people will do ANYTHING to kill us, because they are sympathetic to Al Queda. We cannot stay there INDEFINTLY to stem the tide. We don't have the resources to do this anymore, we are broke, we have enough dead and maimed. The minute we are gone, no matter how long we've stayed they will revert back, because the illness is within their own society. We can not cure them an we can't contain them without hurting our own interests.

INga wrote:The minute we are gone, no matter how long we've stayed they will revert back, because the illness is within their own society. We can not cure them an we can't contain them without hurting our own interests.

You're defining the Taliban as if it were all of Afghanistan. And the only interests being theirs. When there are plenty of people fighting the Taliban. Clearly then those peoples intersts are not the same as the Taliban.And they can be contained and defeated just as those the Taliban are fighitng against can be contained and defeated. Also, when we don't contain them and they attack us, as on 9/11, is that in our interest? 9/11 occured because we had no adequate response to Al Qaeda and let it become powerful.

Revenant said..."The United States is civilized. Whether we are a "civilizing influence" in a backwater like Afghanistan, though, is highly questionable."

No it isn't.

It has made no progress despite twelve years and a trillion dollars' worth of effort.

So in a sense you're probably right. It isn't "highly questionable" if we're a civilizing influence in Afghanistan. The question has been answered, and the answer is "no".

Before we decided to withdraw brothers weren't putting suicide vests on their little sisters.I also contend that educating women has a net benefit to any society. Something that our occupying troops promoted.

Revenant wrote:It has made no progress despite twelve years and a trillion dollars' worth of effort.

No progress whatsoever? Not one scintilla of progress? Has the Taliban made any progress? Why is it that they can progress but we can't or, those we back can't? Why is it that we can't act as a civilizing influence bht the Taliban can act as an anti civilizing influence?Political and military power and influence derived there operates the same for all sides. The Taliban can be weakened and defeated, just as those the Taliban are figting can be defeated by the Taliban. Why do liberals and libertarians always make the argument that progress only goes one way and that the only inevitable action is for the "bad guys" to win? back when it was Iraq the argument was that bombing them was futile it only makes them stronger. But, wouldn't the same thing apply to us? i.e. if they attacked us wouldn't that similarly make us stronger?Yet people like Inga are saying woe is me, we've done enough we can't expend any more resources.Do you think that the Taliban can't feel the same thing? THey can't be demoralized if they are decimated in battle or through drone strikes?You want to talk about not being able to afford to do battle and spending too much. They live in caves. The idea that they would ever spend a trillion on a war would be ridiculous to even entertain.Therefore in any war of attrition, they would lose because they are poorer than poor. Ammunition is not infinite, and neither is leadership. The Taliban might cry uncle if enough pressure is applied to them. And maybe we need to be there until the Afghanis can be the ones to apply that pressure. But this idea that the ravages of War only affects us and our interests is beyond silly.

peace does not equal free necessarily. How much did 9/11 cost both in terms of lives list and dollars lost?How much did containing Iraq cost? what are the costs I letting those issues fester till they bubble over.If we ignore dealing with Iran and Iran gets a nuke and a war is instigated with Israel what will be the cost there?Sometimes you have to pay the lesser cost so as to not pay the bigger cost later.

Revenant wrote:"Compare 2012 Afghanistan to 2001 Afghanistan and explain exactly what is more "civilized" about it."

well for one the Taliban aren't running it. We know how that works our, and it's not in our interest to cede the region back to them."Because they are backing an ideology that a large percentage of the population supports"And a large portion of the population is as war with that ideology. Right now they don't hold Afghanistan. You want to give it to them?h ow about, instead you make it unpopular to side with the Taliban by decimating the Taliban? This is the same argument the lefties used when it was suggested we fight Al Qaeda. And it's just as silly when uttered by the right. Back then the argument was if you fight Al Qaeda you get more people to flock to their cause.Only, if all Qaeda is successful in an attack and we don't offer a reprisal wouldn't that be even more of a recruiting tool? Nothing succeeds like success, and nothing fails more than failure.Al Qaeda was demoralized had its leadership decimated. What allowed them to resurface was us taking our eyes off the ball and allowing them to regroup.That would be the only way the Taliban and Al Qaeda can succeed is if we stop fighting them. But if sufficient pressure is kept up on them people will not flock to the cause the more likely it is that they will die for the effort with nothing to show for it.Al Qaeda and the Taliban can feel the exact same thing that you and Inga are expressing from your left wing. So, no the Taliban doesn't have to win. If we can maintain the pressure and allow an alternative to thrive and don't allow the Taliban to shoot people in the face for trying to change! it can lead to a totally changed society. Look at Japan and Germany. They are not the same societies as they were when we were at war with them.

We pacified Iraq. Iraq was stable. Remove all troops before you're ready and a vacuum is created. Al Qaeda or the Taliban will fill that vacuum. Iraq may not be a utopia but its certainly better than an Iraq controlled by Al Qaeda.The same would hold true for Afganistan.It shows that we can win battles but it also shows that we have to maintain those victories because they can backslide.Ideally the Iraqis or the Afhanis can control the opposition on its own. But if they can't then we shouldn't be leaving. Its as simple as that.We should leave when our victory is secured. No more no less. Even if it takes years. Ceding countries to terrorists so they can create a terrorist state (and are backed by state funding to be used to foment further terrorism) is a horrible horrible horrible idea.

That being said if you are able to secure the region and devastate our enemy the region will not be like it was during the insurgency in Iraq but more like Iraq after it was pacified.

And if you want to say the international community should be dealing with this instead of us, it still means us since we are the the primary funders of the UN and make up the majority of its troops. Would the UN find a rogue state in its interest to contain? Of course it would.that's why the UN is trying to contain Iran.

If however you are going to put this Into the hands of the UN then THEY they have to back red lines and sanction sometimes with force, since otherwise the whole enterprise is shown to be ineffectual.

If Syria is strengthened by using chemical weapons that emboldens other counties to similarly use chemical weapons. Your reluctance to use force,WHERE NECESSARY, is only ensuring more of what we don't want to be predominant in the world.And this lesson is shown over and over again.We wouldn't have had a WWII if we dealt with the threat of Hitler before he was allowed to grow too strong.How many millions had to die in that war to teach us that lesson?you don't cede ground to terrorists! especially if you've won that ground. They should at the very least have to earn that victory. Thank God the military isn't run by Revenant and/or Inga.But wait it IS being run by Obama which is almost as bad. His policies as a candidate were hopelessly naive and that is what you are arguing for as well.

And EVERYWHERE in the Middle East we are seeing the example of us and/or the international community not holding regimes to account, and the regimes then taking the next step down the road. We don't get to ignore those things as they happen since of course we live in the world, and therefore will have to deal with the effects of the Middle East.The same way that radiation is washing up on the shores in California from Japan's nuclear accident.The same way we had 9/11 even though we weren't yet at war with Afghanistan or Iraq.

And finally, let's remember that the Afghanistan war was run by a commander in chief who didn't think he could win, had a deep distrust of the military, and seems like he really didn't care about anything other than getting out as soon as possible.With a leader like that how are we expecting success? The fact is Afghanistan is a lot more successful than it is unsuccessful, but the fact that the Taliban isn't completely on its heels is largely due to the president running the war without the intent to win it.

We've lost more freedom fighting terrorism than we've lost because of terrorism.

How much did 9/11 cost both in terms of lives list and dollars lost?

3000 lives and around $200 billion.

In other words, a tiny fraction of the lives and dollars lost in the wars we've been fighting to prevent its happening again.

How much did containing Iraq cost?

You assume "containing Iraq" was in our interests. It was certainly in the interests of the Iranians and Saudis, both of which are hostile to us.

If we ignore dealing with Iran and Iran gets a nuke and a war is instigated with Israel what will be the cost there?

The cost to the United States? Minimal unless we decide to join the war. Let Israel deal with Iran.

Sometimes you have to pay the lesser cost so as to not pay the bigger cost later.

And sometimes you pay enormous costs that incur enormous costs later. That's what we've been doing for 12 years now. We're no safer from terrorists than we were on 9/10/01; we're just trillions of dollars poorer. And a lot of civilians are dead.

We pacified Iraq. Iraq was stable. Remove all troops before you're ready and a vacuum is created.

The fact that Iraq fell back into chaos the minute we left proves that your first two sentences are false. A country that is "peaceful" only so long as a foreign power pays $100 billion a year to occupy it is not "stable" under any sane definition of the word.

That being said if you are able to secure the region and devastate our enemy the region will not be like it was during the insurgency in Iraq but more like Iraq after it was pacified.

So if you're able to "secure the region" (something nobody's ever accomplished and which you have no plan for) and "devastate the enemy" (most of whom are in "friendly" nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), you will be rewarded with a region "like Iraq when it was pacified", i.e. a region we have to station a large percentage of our troops in forever to prevent it being immediately reclaimed by the natives. At a cost of approximately one 9/11's worth of American lives and cash every few years.